For the following, > this discussion should have been on private@ to begin with, but, the ship has sailed. ... > This doesn't make sense here.
I started the thread about already publicly visible version issues according to the ASF PMC communication guideline. It's no confidential, personal, or security-related stuff. Are you insisting this is confidential? - https://www.apache.org/foundation/governance/pmcs#communication > Virtually all PMC communication should happen > on the dev@ list or any other appropriate public mailing list. May I ask which relevant context you are insisting not to receive specifically? I gave the specific examples (UI/logs/screenshot), and got the specific legal advice from `legal-discuss@` and replied why the version should be different. > Frankly, repeating this publicly without relevant context, and avoiding the response you already got, is inappropriate. Dongjoon. On Fri, Jun 16, 2023 at 1:23 PM Sean Owen <sro...@gmail.com> wrote: > As we noted in the last thread, this discussion should have been on > private@ to begin with, but, the ship has sailed. > > You are suggesting that non-PMC members vote on whether the PMC has to do > something? No, that's not how anything works here. > It's certainly the PMC that decides what to put in the board report, or > take action on behalf of the project. > > This doesn't make sense here. Frankly, repeating this publicly without > relevant context, and avoiding the response you already got, is > inappropriate. > > You may call a PMC vote on whether there's even an issue here, sure. If > you pursue it, you should explain specifically what the issue is w.r.t. > policy, and argue against the response you've already received. > We put valid issues in the board report, for sure. We do not include > invalid issues in the board report. That part needs no decision from anyone. > > > On Fri, Jun 16, 2023 at 3:08 PM Dongjoon Hyun <dongjoon.h...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> No, this is a vote on dev@ intentionally as a part of our previous >> thread, "ASF policy violation and Scala version issues" ( >> https://lists.apache.org/thread/k7gr65wt0fwtldc7hp7bd0vkg1k93rrb) >> >> > did you mean this for the PMC list? >> >> I clearly started the thread with the following. >> > - Apache Spark PMC should include this incident report and the result >> in the next Apache Spark Quarterly Report (August). >> >> However, there is a perspective that this is none of Apache Spark PMC's >> role here. >> >> That's the rationale of this vote. >> >> This vote is whether this is Apache Spark PMC's role or not. >> >> Dongjoon. >> >
